Maxillary overdenture on three implants retained by low-profile stud attachments - A prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Clinical data are needed on long-term outcomes of removable implant-supported prostheses in the fully edentulous maxilla as a function of the number of implants, effects of the attachment system and other clinical variables. OBJECTIVE: To restore individuals with an edentate maxilla with a metal-reinforced removable prosthesis without palatal coverage retained by low-profile stud attachments on three implants. METHODS: The regional ethics committee approved a prospective cohort study that included all consecutive patients treated in a private speciality clinic. Primary outcomes were patients reported, that is denture satisfaction scale and oral health-related quality of life - OHIP-20. Secondary outcomes were implant- (bone loss, implant complications and peri-implant conditions) and prosthesis-related (prosthesis complications, maintenance needs and mucosa condition). RESULTS: Thirty-two study participants were recruited between March 2007 and October 2016 and followed for a minimum of five years. According to Kruskal-Wallis tests, the OHIP-20 and Denture Satisfaction Scale questionnaire pre-treatment scores differed significantly. After an average of 6.7 years, peri-implant bone loss of more than 2 mm was observed on 17% of all implants, while no or minor bone loss was seen on 38%. The estimated success of implants was 0.95 at 168 months. The estimated success of the prosthesis, that is no adverse events or need for any repairs, was 0.55 at 156 months. CONCLUSION: The positive findings in the current clinical study strengthen the notion that for many individuals with an edentulous maxilla, a removable prosthesis retained by three implants fitted with low-profile stud-attachment is a reliable technical solution.

Maxillary 3-implant removable prostheses without palatal coverage on Locator abutments - a case series.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to present the clinical outcomes of patients with an edentulous maxilla treated with a removable prosthesis without palatal coverage retained by Locator abutments on three titanium implants. MATERIAL AND METHODS: All the patients in a private dental clinic consecutively treated up to 6 years earlier were invited for a follow-up examination (n = 23). Two implants were placed bilaterally and one implant anteriorly in a tripod pattern. All patients underwent a clinical and radiological examination and completed questionnaires related to their experiences and satisfaction with the reconstructions. The prosthesis and implants were examined for adverse biological or technical aspects. Patient satisfaction and quality of life outcomes were collected using a self-reported Denture Satisfaction Scale and OHIP-20. Statistical analyses were limited to descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Twenty-one of 23 invited participants consented to participate. We report in this study the outcomes of the study participants who had received their implants more than 2 years ago (n = 12). None of their 36 implants gave any indications of mobility or tenderness upon percussion. Suppuration was observed on one implant. Probing around the implants caused no (53%) or minor bleeding (47%). The incidence of adverse biological and technical events was near non-existent. The rates of replacement of male attachments varied, as did any changes of male attachment retention force. All participants described the task of insertion and removal of the prosthesis as unproblematic. The marginal bone loss ranged between 0 and 5.3 mm. The OHIP-20 and the Denture Satisfaction Questionnaire scores were high. CONCLUSIONS: The results in this clinical study are positive and promising. Admittedly, the study design is purely retrospective and observational with a small participant cohort, so the technical solution of placing three implants in the edentulous maxilla to retain a removable prosthesis should be appraised further in more controlled studies.

Clinical comparison between two different splint designs for temporomandibular disorder therapy.

OBJECTIVE: To compare splint therapy in temporomandibular disorder (TMD) patients using two splint designs. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In a double-blind randomized parallel trial, 40 consenting patients were selected from the dental faculty pool of TMD patients. Two splint designs were produced: an ordinary stabilization (Michigan type) and a NTI (Nociceptiv trigeminal inhibition). The differences in splint design were not described to the patients. All patients were treated by one operator. A separate, blinded, examiner assessed joint and muscle tenderness by palpation and jaw opening prior to splint therapy, and after 2 and 6 weeks' and 3 months' splint use during night-time. The patients reported headache and TMD-related pain on a visual analog scale before and after splint use, and were asked to describe the comfort of the splint and invited to comment. RESULTS: Thirty-eight patients with mainly myogenic problems were observed over 3 months. A reduction of muscle tenderness upon palpation and self-reported TMD-related pain and headache and an improved jaw opening was seen in both splint groups (p < 0.05; paired t-test and Wilcoxon signed-ranks tests). There were no changes for TM joint tenderness upon palpation. No differences were noted between the two splint designs after 3 months for the chosen criteria of treatment efficacy (p > 0.05; Mann-Whitney U-test). CONCLUSION: No differences in treatment efficacy were noted between the Michigan and the NTI splint types when compared over 3 months.